Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 22 June	24 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 - page created by a blocked or banned editor $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eushta[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a Google search,I can't even find the supposed ethnic group, and the village with the same name is non notable itself. Staglit (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consider renaming to Eushta people or Eushta Tatars. Multiple references are available from this search. As for the settlement: All documented settlements are notable. Consider creating a separate article for the settlement as Eushta, Tomsk Oblast. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. Anyone who is willing and able to improve this article is encouraged to consider improving Tom Tatars as well. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last Supper Movie 2014[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Half of it copyrighted from here:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3498590/ Also, I cannot find any evidence of notability. Staglit (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hasn't attracted any significant notice. If and when it gets released (not to be confused with the Malayalam film The Last Supper which has been), then we can see. Until then, WP:NOT YET (films). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon to establish notability. Even though the film exists as evidenced by the recent trailer, it's too early to tell if it will get general coverage to establish notability. The only thing I found was this that refers to filming starting last January. I would be fine with recreating the article if more coverage emerges. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Temporary delete without prejudice toward undeletion or recreation in few months when this completed film receives requisite coverage... and it's rare that a Eddie Griffin / Penny Marshall film would not end up meting inclusion criteria. And note: Since we do not have an article on the Malayalam film of this same name, I gave it some tweaks and moved this one to its proper title per WP:NCF. There is the additional issue of WP:COI as the film's production company is "Flickbag" and the article author is User:Flickbag. He should be notified of the WP:APPARENTCOI and his inadvertent violation of WP:ORGNAME. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wenche Kjølås[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a Norwegian businessperson. I don't see how she has made any significant contributions to the field of business, even with the updated edits. See WP:BIO Gdfusion (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I nominated this article for deletion, it has significantly improved, adding reliable third-party sources, specific examples, and removing WP:PEACOCK words and phrases. So I retract my nomination for deletion. Gdfusion (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG (as the article shows) and is one of the most influential women in business in Norway. Important director job and numerous board memberships in major corporations, chair of major transport company. Geschichte (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday (Hillsong United album)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep as the album is sourced with a Cross Rhythms review and I found a brief mention on the artist AllMusic biography, which indicates that there may be more sources out there.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the Christian Broadcasting Network, Everyday eventually sold over 1,000,000 copies in the US alone. It might not technically be certified platinum, but it certainly got the same numbers as if it was. I also found two other sources which don't do much to establish notability, but would help with adding some details to the article: producer credit and established basic Hillsong United sound.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as the album has a solid review with Cross Rhythms, a good mention on AllMusic, and has sold over one million copies in the U.S. according to CBN, as stated above. Jair Crawford (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certified gold by ARIA.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No policy argument for deleting the material was presented, and a plan for presenting content was put forward. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are two different court cases here, one from 1980 and another from 2008, which have been combined in this article by people unfamiliar with the differences between CB and ham radio. bleak_fire_ (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's certainly confusion between two cases here, but surely something can be done short of deletion, if one or both of the cases are notable, to focus on one case or present the two cases side by side. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment How about instead of deletion, we create a disambiguation page, like this?

American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC (disambiguation)

American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC can refer to either:

American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC (1980), regarding CB radio
American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC (2008), regarding Broadband over Power Line (BPL)

K2TRF has stated (see Talk page) that most of the content on the page refers to 1980 with incorrect technical information. We can keep this page, with the changes suggested by K2TRF and I (we are both ham operators, and I am familiar with legal citations). Then we link this article into the 1980 on the disambiguation page, while allowing someone to write the 2008 case later on?

We can use the Talk page of the disambiguation page to store information for later transfer to 2008 when it is made.

-bleak_fire_ (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should post what I did on the Talk page here, for continuity to the AfD. In the first paragraph, three reference links are applied to the end of the date (at the end of the sentence):

    1. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/617/875/41173/
    2. http://www.leagle.com/decision/2008751524F3d227_1727
    3. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12380905032588396714&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

The first link references the 1980 case, whereas the second and third links are entirely about the 2008 case. From this alone, we can assume the article was written with mixed sources, and therefore has multiple problems/inconsistencies in its text. I'm not sure if I'm just incredibly tired (at 11:46pm locally) or if this article is written incorrectly, but I don't see anything even remotely related to Broadband over Power Line systems (BPL), which is what the 2008 case was entirely about. The 1980 case, dealing with the massive influx of CB operations and the unregulated nature of both CB as a service and the mentioned operators, is the only case case I can see mentioned/referenced in this text. Perhaps it is just a very shallow article discussing the 1980 case, and needs to have the irrelevant references removed as well as have the content of the article expanded with the valid, relevant references? Then a new page could be made for the 2008 case, dealing with BPL rather than CB.

If the current article is denied AfD, it should only be because it is/becomes adopted/corrected by someone with the time to (essentially) rewrite the current page using only the 1980 case information (since that is what the article reads about, and has no discussion about the 2008 case present). Then another article could be created for the 2008 case, with those respective references. Sadly, I cannot guarantee I would be able to do this in a timely manner myself, due to other already existing obligations. If I have time later on at some point, I will return to see if the AfD passed or was denied (for adoption & re-creating), however if nobody has the free time to currently take this task on, I have to vote for the AfD, as it is incorrect and confusing in its current state. k2trf (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K2TRF, I am willing to fix the current article once it's moved to 1980 in a disambiguation page. We don't need to create a 2008 article right away, it can just be listed on the disambiguation page and linked once the article is made. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Pett[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested with no explanation. The subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played a match in a fully professional league. There is no indication the article passes WP:GNG as no evidence is present to show the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. Fenix down (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This player has signed for League 2 club Stevenage and is guaranteed to be a starting player in next season's league, I would ask the page may be allowed to remain at least until he has played a professional game, which will be within 2 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96jrimmer (talk • contribs)

"is guaranteed to be a starting player in next season's league" - you have no proof of that. If he does play, the article can be un-deleted by an admin with a couple of clicks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning that the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:G11 too slakr^\ talk / 01:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gumpul[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail our notability guidelines. There is a certain amount presence on social media, much of it seemingly written by somebody with the same name as the article's creator, but there is a shortage of independent coverage. The website itself seems to be based on WordPress. The logo was copyvio (uploader took somebody else's image, cropped out a copyright notice, and added "Gumpul.com" to the bottom), so I removed it. bobrayner (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC) bobrayner (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing notability Bali88 (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir,..

Gumpul is a independent site the content is not created by it's owner but by users across the globe you can notify the 20000 face book likes for brand "gumpul". it is notable Specially in India. yo can't deny it im not advertising about the site here i just wrote about a brand. deleting is not wise decision, Alexa's Rank is a proof to say that it has notability, as well Gumpul also got Voted by number of users on Top ten's " list of top 10 classified sites " and got 7 most desirable classified site in india the two sources are can't be manipulate by owners.

it has notability Not require to delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil kumar kanneboina (talk • contribs) 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may help your argument if you add sources to the article. The company's facebook page, etc. are not considered reliable sources. Are there news articles about the company? Do you know how to do inline sources? Bali88 (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would establish notability. Random top ten sites are not reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)

The top tens site is user-generated. It was discussed (and rejected) recently at the reliable sources noticeboard. bobrayner (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (as indicated by blanking this page) without other participation. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate led recruitment[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertsing. Expert 2 Care promoting Expert 2 Care. The Banner talk 21:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a poorly thought out attempt to manufacture a buzzword in order to promote a product. bd2412 T 13:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacancy led recruitment of the same company. The Banner talk 21:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails, for starters, WP:OR, WP:MADEUP, and WP:NEO. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and redirect to Warped Tour. Most of the "keep" !votes boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, but it is clear that there is no good coverage and without coverage, we cannot have an article. Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Tour 2012[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Warped Tour was undone. My argument: there is no verified content in here, and the only thing this and other articles have is a list of bands that played there. Even if those appearances themselves were verified, that doesn't make them notable, and it certainly doesn't make this particular instance of the tour notable. Whatever is relevant and of encyclopedic value can be stated in the main article--the rest falls foul of WP:NOTDIR. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I posted a few days ago to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Concert_tours_etc. to propose these redirects, and have left a notification there pointing to this AfD. I'm not going to list them all in this AfD, but obviously what happens to the other lists (that's what they are, nothing more) depends on what happens in this AfD. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With out theses articles, most of the information will be lost for those who want to look back at the list for whatever reason. Wikipedia is for encyclopedia reasons, and this would fall under encyclopedia reasons. Encmetalhead (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Per nom. This article is mostly a list of bands and fails WP:NOTDIR. Johnny338 (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced, and serves as an encyclopedia which is what Wikipedia is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encmetalhead (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is sourced does not mean it is automatically in need of an article on Wikipedia. Johnny338 (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not "sourced". There's a couple of announcements, and announcements of announcements. Some of them might actually in reliable sources, maybe, but that's not the point. I'll cite the relevant guideline from Wikipedia:WikiProject Concert Tours:

Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability.

This burden has not been met for this or the other articles. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Warped tour HAS received significant coverage in independent reliable sources for all the examples you have listed... Encmetalhead (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it hasn't, and the 2012 version (and the others) certainly hasn't. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also like to add the official website only lists bands and dates for the current year, so the information isn't readily available for past years outside of the Wikipedia articles. Encmetalhead (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Not independently notable simply because lots of somewhat well-known bands performed at it. Maybe a list of bands that have performed at every Warped Tour, sectioned off by year, is the right place for the really long list in this article now. Jinkinson talk to me 21:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be 20 years worth of bands, and I doubt any band has played every year. The article is independently notable as Warped Tour is a household name and has been around for 20 years. Encmetalhead (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I myself have never heard of it, not that that provides any weight here, but anyways: I agree that the list of bands who have performed at the Warped Tour is going to be long, but it's better than this article. Also, the amount of time the tour has been around is not enough to keep the article. Johnny338 (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jinkinson, Encmetalhead, Johnny338: such a list already exists for every year at List of Warped Tour lineups by year. In light of this, I don't see the point in keeping the article as it essentially duplicates the list and does not impart any additional information. Richard3120 (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article is bloated, long, and shouldn't have been made in the first place. Encmetalhead (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly as it has no references. But for Warped Tour 2012 to justify its existence, I do feel we are going to need to see some information (properly sourced) as to why it was "an important year" as some editors suggest – just a list of bands isn't going to cut it. Richard3120 (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tour is notable since several notable bands performed. Article already has several third-party sources. This tour is not like most tours which feature only a handful of bands for the entire run. Adding every single band for 20 years to one article would lead to an article that is much too large. DX927 (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if we combined all the years into one article there will be a discuss on why the list wasn't broken into separate articles for each year. Encmetalhead (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Why would every single band be listed in the first place? And "Warped Tour" may be notable, but that doesn't mean that Warped Tour xxxx is. It has to pass the WP:GNG, and I don't see that happening for any of these. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Specific years for Warped Tour are notable. It's rare that anybody talks about Warped Tour as a whole, people discuss specific years. The tour as it was in say 1999 can not be compared to the tour as it is now or as it was in 2012. As such I belive that having articles for individual years of Warped Tour is important. Several sources can be found for lineups and I think that the it certainly does pass WP:GNG. There is significant coverage of Warped Your every year, most of this is by independant, reliable sources. I don't really see any way that this does not pass the WP:GNG. Punkrok97 (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Punkrok97: Read what Drmies said above in relation to WikiProject Concert Tours. This article actually doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Also, would you care to link these sources you are discussing? Johnny338 (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just from today http://www.brooklynvegan.com/archives/2014/06/mixtapes_ryan_r.html and http://loudwire.com/linkin-park-play-surprise-vans-warped-tour-set-special-guests/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encmetalhead (talk • contribs) 23:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. You think that the blog of a Brooklyn vegan is a reliable source, and that the following note is in-depth discussion--"Ryan Rockwell of pop punk band Mixtapes allegedly said something along the lines of 'Fuck Tigers Jaw, kiss whoever you want"'? For realsies? Note the "allegedly said something along the lines of". This constitutes significant discussion of the 2012 tour as a whole and this is why it should stay? (I'm pretending it's about the 2012 tour, which is what this discussion is about.) I think you need to memorize WP:FART. Or start editing K-pop articles. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Wouldn't take the Brooklyn Vegan blog as a source but Alternative Press is certainly noteworthy (http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/vans_warped_tour_2012_announce_stage_lineups). In addition that year itself is noteworthy as a fan actually died at one of the dates. Valid sources for this information can be found here: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/young-woman-collapses-and-dies-at-vans-warped-tour-20120716 and here: http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2012/07/15/woman_dead_after_collapsing_at_molson_amphitheatre.html. 2012 was also the first year the the Warped Roadies television show was shot, again making it a notable year. I'm not sure if IMBD counts as a source but if it does the page can be found here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2195454/. If not, other valid sources of this information can be found. I hope that this would be enough to show that the 2012 year is in fact distinct from the tour as a whole and that it deserves its own page. Punkrok97 (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Altpress reports the lineup. That's to be expected; no doubt you can find plenty more sources that report the lineup. That's never going to make this pass the GNG requirement. No, IMDB doesn't count as a reliable source, though that TV show itself might be notable--but that doesn't make the tour notable ("notability is not inherited"). That leaves an unfortunate accident, but why is that more than an accident? We're not the news. Someone said that the "shockwaves" were still felt, but there seems to be no evidence of those shockwaves. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hafspajen (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://propertyofzack.com/post/88709345993/warped-tour-takes-stand-no-moshing-no-crowdsurfing Encmetalhead (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that blog/ezine were a reliable source, it's in-depth coverage consists of this: "It looks as if Warped Tour is laying the law down on no moshing or crowdsurfing due to possible lawsuits that could end the festival. What are your thoughts?" 15:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete per noms spot on analysis - It's nothing but a huge directory of non notable bands, What can be merged should be merged to Warped Tour, I'm not saying Merge on a whole as it looks like nothing much (If anything!) can merged. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to parent. There are some unreliable sources that show it existed but nothing to demonstrate notability of this particular tour. The only prose is the lede, the rest is an eye numbing directory. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown Please see my latest comment. While it isn't in this article currently (although i would be more than happy to add it) there are several things that do make 2012 a particularly notable year for the Vans Warped Tour. These things are sourceable (sources given above) and I think make the page worth keeping. Punkrok97 (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah add these sources, that post of the argument against the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encmetalhead (talk • contribs) 12:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much my opinion counts here, but as a friend of an artist who just played this year's Warped dates on the West Coast, I know that 2012 and 2014 are pretty notable amongst the other years' tours. Specific to 2012, that was an important year because Warped briefly left the States and went to England - something that single-headliner tours do, but is almost never done by festival-style tours like this one. Also, there is some coverage of skate events at this Warped that features important names within that world. Perhaps if these points and the death of the teenager in Toronto were expanded upon in the original article, that might lend credence to the validity of the article? http://www.virtualfestivals.com/latest/news/13505 http://sidewalk.mpora.com/skateboarding-videos/vans-warped-tour-2012-uk-vert-championships-highlights.html Riceflour (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that 2012 was the first time the tour had come to the UK in a decade so that would be some kind of significant event in the tour's history (and after one more UK tour in 2013 it has been cancelled again this year), but my problem is that I struggle to see how even including all this information would be enough to create a decent article once the band line-ups have been taken out. I think it would be only be a paragraph or so long, in which case it would be better off as a section in the main Warped Tour article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For years I have relied on WP to receive a faster and updated knowledge of every concert/tour line-ups that I have attended. The actual Warped Tour website have had flaws in the past for the list of bands and dates but thanks to the users who updated the articles on the WP, it was cleared for misconception. I personally know a good amount of friends of mine who would rather rely on WP for festival line-ups rather than the actual website. Yes, set times are announce on the day of the show but set times have nothing to do with this at all. Many of the bands that were announced for the tour are sourced as well as stage placements and stage names that were announced on reliable third party websites before the actual announcement from the tour. Glencoco8995 (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you say that, all the sources for those bands lists are dead links in the main article. And if the primary source can't get the bands list right, who can you trust? The parent article is a mess of broken links and unreliable sources. It needs an overhaul itself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles are allowed to stay, we can spearhead the overhaul of the main article and all the separate years. Could we do it now? Yes, but with the threat of the page being blanked again its more wise to wait until the decision before putting in that work. In fact, I'll nominate myself as leader of a revitalization project for this subsection of articles pending that they stay active. Encmetalhead (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each article is its own island. It must demonstrate its own notability, it can't WP:INHERIT it from the parent article. Personally, I would just worry about the parent article (which is a bloody mess) before I even thought of any year articles, which look likely to get deleted. As for nominating "leaders", this isn't a concept I'm familiar with at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's not entirely true. There are spin-off articles allowed to keep very large articles to become unreadably massive. Judging by the length even of this spin-off article, that would seem to be the situation here. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG as a tour. A bit crufty, but we wouldn't bat an eye if this were called List of bands playing the 2012 Vans Warped Tour or some such. Needs more sourcing, as is true of 900,000 other articles at WP — no cause for deletion. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, such an article as you mention effectively already exists – see List of Warped Tour lineups by year. Which is also completely unreferenced. Richard3120 (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as mentioned above, that is a bloated article and would only become more bloated as time goes on. If each year has it's own article, then no single article would be bloated. Encmetalhead (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this perspective. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kanjani Eight. 28bytes (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shota Yasuda[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This artist is wholly non-notable outside of their work in "Johnny & Associates" which later became "Kanjani Eight". There is little in this that cannot be covered under the Kanjani Eight article, and certainly not sufficient article nor notability for a single article on this person alone. Ref's, as expected, are about the band, not the individual the panda ₯’ 20:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I first became aware of this article when it had an expired proposed deletion tag on it. I checked out its references, and searched for further references to verify notability. It seemed like the subject should be notable, as a member of a (seemingly) notable band and someone who'd acted on TV and modeled there must be some significant coverage, but I couldn't find any, so I deleted it. Recently, a request was made on my talk page to restore it, and I did so without prejudice since our proposed deletion policy allows for article restoration if anyone wants it restored. But I warned the editor that it would likely be deleted without better references. -- Atama頭 20:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kanjani Eight. Even with searching his name in Japanese I couldn't find much reliable coverage (only illegal streams of the shows he's acted in). However, as he's a member of a notable band, and he's already mentioned there, a redirect to his band's article is a better alternative to total deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Envelope (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unsourced article about a band whose only substantive claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC is criterion #10, the very one that contains the proviso that it supports a redirect to the notable work, not a standalone article, if it's the only substantive claim of notability in the article. In addition, a standalone bio about the lead singer was recently created by User:Envechris — note band's name, note lead singer's name, note conflict of interest rules — with exclusively primary and unreliable commercial sources, and not even the first hint of any more reliable source coverage than the exactly none that is present here. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this nomination if good sources can be added, but it can't stand on Wikipedia in this form. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not coming up with any significant coverage in reliable sources for this act to meet WP:GNG. The song on One Tree Hill looks legit, but as noted above, WP:BAND suggests that satisfying criterion #10 alone is generally insufficient to warrant an article. Gongshow talk 20:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is it unsourced, this article reads like a webpage advertising the band. It fails WP:BAND except for criterion #10, but as pointed out above, that alone is not sufficient to maintain an article. Johnny338 (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a band to be covered in an encyclopedia. Gdfusion (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing encyclopedic here. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable. Promotional article. No references. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside Equities Group[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a non-notable company. I am unable to find any references that are not mere mentions or directory type listings. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 19:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the above. Gdfusion (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of references with this search I added three to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The search mentioned above and a similar on Highbeam, turn up various mentions of the company, generally in news items about the approvals process for particular developments. But developments are what developers do, and attract associated local coverage; it simply verifies existence as an operating firm. I am not seeing any specific in-depth coverage of the firm as such which could demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't think just using the local newspaper is what a global encyclopedia should be doing. Outside of Chicago and Ann Arbor, I don't see much other than Businessweek. Everything else is just job mentions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Fennell[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary and user-generated sources, of a person whose principal claim of notability is an unsuccessful candidacy in a political party's nomination contest (a notability claim that fails WP:POLITICIAN). While there are things about his business career that might get him past our inclusion rules for businesspeople if they were reliably sourced, as it stands right now they aren't, and thus don't count toward properly demonstrating his notability at all. The article also contains a positively stunning amount of entirely unsourced personal detail for which conflict of interest editing by somebody who knows the topic personally is very nearly the only possible explanation. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if good sources can be added to properly attest that he actually meets one or more of our inclusion rules, but this version is so far from passing muster that it could technically have been speedied G11. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article as it is presently constituted fails to meet the general notability guidelines of the Wikipedia, in that it does not demonstrate that David Fennell has received substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Also, it fails the guideline at WP:POLITICIAN, as he was an unelected political candidate. In my search for coverage, I found coverage of the election primary, but I did not find any in depth coverage of this David Fennell in independent, reliable sources. I found lots about other "David Fennells". The author is new to Wikipedia and has not grasped the concepts yet, so be kind and try not to use too much jargon. --Bejnar (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to make this article better. I have tried to follow the rules as closely as possible, I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor, but I am learning as quickly as possible. I have edited a significant part of this article to help with flow and readability. I understand that I included too much data that was not needed in this context. In terms of general guidelines for notable people, this individual while a loosing candidate, has was able to gather a huge number of votes that can be verified by multiple sources cited. The numbers involved far out shadow other current and would be politicians included in this archive. I will continue to improve the sources as soon as possible. I have also improved the sources related to David Fennell as pertain to his business career which is also significant and should easily pass muster when fully cited according to the guidelines as I have read them. Thank you for your help, respectfully Jschimpf (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of votes a person got in any given election is irrelevant to their notability or lack thereof. Either they won or they didn't, and the number of votes they happened to get in the process has no bearing on anything. A person who gets 10 million votes but loses is still just a person who lost — and a person who was acclaimed to a notable office, and thus technically garnered no votes at all in the process, is still a person who held a notable office. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The three new sources cited in the article do not add any notability. The problem with the business citation to Media Bay for notability purposes is that Media Bay is not independent from David Fennell. It is his company. See the essay Wikipedia:Independent sources for a discussion of that term. The Wikipedia guideline at Wikipedia:Notability says in summary Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. This means that outside sources are needed to demonstrate the "attention of the world at large". Similarly, the citation to his Master's thesis is nicely verified by his university, but adds no notability unless it is cited by a substantial number of others. I don't think that David Fennell could quality as an WP:ACADEMIC. Lastly, it doesn't matter how many votes he received, he cannot qualify as a WP:POLITICIAN unless he has won public office. You need to look for independent, reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the events of his life. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Most venture capitalists do not receive the kind of attention that provides the notability that Wikipedia requires in a topic for an article. But one does not have to be a Donald Trump; for example, take a look at the article about Marc Andreessen and the sources that are cited about him. --Bejnar (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I seems as thought the guidelines are justifiably vague when considering the notability of a candidate, winning or losing. In terms of significance on the political front, I will work to gather more sources related to notability. I was under some impression from the guidelines that it would be somewhat of a given that a politician that earned a very large number of votes would obviously have substantial notability among their constituents as well as in the media. I will cite additional sources that I hope will help clear that issue up as soon as possible. He certainly qualifies under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", and I will help support that with additional citations. In terms of the business and the academic side, those references were put there to establish general credibility and further inform about a person who continues to be politically active in California. Respectfully Jschimpf (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are now aware that with regards to Wikipedia notability that "earned a very large number of votes would obviously have substantial notability" is not true. Also with regard to coverage remember that mere mention is not relevant for notability, it needs to be significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this may be a postion of the level that winning the nomination might confer notability, someone who looses the nomination is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician, thus failing the Special Notability Guideline high bar for these folks. You pull off all the ordinary political campaign coverage and you're left with a failure of GNG. It is a pity, however, to lose such deathless unsourced prose as: "The kitchen table also served for years as a lab bench where Fennell taught his son to solder Heathkits and build the family oscilloscope, television, and radios. The table was famously covered with burns from the use of the soldering iron. It was in these early years that Fennell learned technology products were man made, not magic, and could be learned and built. Steve Jobs built the same Heathkits in the 1970s and cited them as the basis of his knowledge of modern technology." Ad infinitum, ad nauseam... Carrite (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, but I just don't find the coverage necessary to meet our requirements WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Our test for notability is that he received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. That does not appear to be true of his entrepreneurial activities or of his run for office. Incidentally, the following statement in the article is not true: Fennell sought the Republican Party nomination for Lieutenant Governor of California in the 2014 primary election. He lost to Ron Nehring. Actually California does not have such a thing as a "Republican Party nomination" any more. The truth is that he ran in the state's open primary, finishing a distant third and thus not qualifying for the November ballot. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lankan news sites[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced list of mostly non-notable news web sites, with spam links. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. - Mr X 19:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, heavily prone to spamming.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable at all - Most are either redlinked or not linked at all, All spam, All not encyclopedic. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Bear Ghost[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced bio about a non-notable producer. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - Mr X 19:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC at this time. Gongshow talk 20:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was unable to find any sources that would help support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julio viskovich[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced biography of a writer. The Forbes source is mere mention, and the other two sources seem closely connected. I am unable to find sources that discuss the subject in depth. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. - Mr X 19:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a credible claim of significance either. It seems to be a vanity article. Why would you not nominate this for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#A7? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've had CSDs rejected for less notable claims than " known for his book "Sellarketing" " or " He has been honored for his contributions to modern selling by Forbes", so I decided to err on the side of caution. What passes as a "significant claim" varies widely, depending on which admin is reviewing the CSD.- Mr X 00:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Had I seen it proposed for deletion as A7, and I was unable to find sources to establish notability, I would have deleted it. Empty phrases like "known for" and "has been honored" without specifics or sources aren't credible claims of significance. Accordingly, I have changed my initial comment here to 'delete'. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough notability. -- GreenC 02:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 01:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wingspan (Transformers)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has had no references for a long time. I don't think the subjects of this article could be notable.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons or delete. It's got sources, but none of them can really establish notability. Seems to be another of the Transformers in the mini-fansite embedded in Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. It does not appear to have been given any form of wide release, and I could not readily find any independent sources that discuss the film in any meaningful way. Magic1million (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding any notability. Bali88 (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, both generally and in film. Can't even find an independent non-reliable review for this film, where such reviews have been available for other low-budget films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete The film exists, but has not been the recipient of attention by independent reliable sources. I was hoping this would change 4 years ago, but it still fails WP:NF for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (soft); WP:A2 and WP:TRANSLATE do realistically apply for this exact reason (i.e., the article can exist on another language, but that's not enough reason to create a google-translated version or verbatim copy of it as a pseudo-stub here, as the result is needlessly incomprehensible). Anyone is free to speedily WP:UNDELETE or re-create the article otherwise. slakr^\ talk / 01:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baayun Mulud[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a machine translation (google translate) of the Indonesian Wikipedia article https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baayun_Mulud. According to WP:TRANSLATE, an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think the nominator's rationale is a valid one. Being a machine translation is not a good rationale for nomination; instead, such articles should be improved and copyedited. With that said, I searched about the topic, and most of what I could find are Blogspot pages. However, I did find a few websites that appeared to be reliable, though since I have no knowledge of Indonesian, I can't say if they are significant or not. Can an Indonesian-speaking editor help me out? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zettai ryōiki[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. The various references used to assemble this article are a synthesis of sources. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zettai Ryōiki (2nd nomination) the same problem was recognized but with different sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zettai Ryōiki, which is the first deletion discussion. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is nothing like the "mis-placed stub dictionary entry, that discusses the etymology, translations" etc. described at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is a discussion of the aesthetics, history, and popularity of a particular fashion. That is not to say that the article establishes the notability of the concept or verifies its own content; this is not a "keep" !vote. However, the reference to NOTDICT is entirely spurious. Of course the article contains a definition; all good articles do. The problem that NOTDICT addresses is articles that contain nothing but a definition and related information about the word, and are unlikely to be expanded beyond that content. Cnilep (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTDICT does not seem to apply here, I am also seeing more in the way of sources than described in the last AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Knowledgekid87's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no idea how the article was in the previous deleted version, but actually it goes well beyond a dictionary definition and the sourcing appears to sustain a claim of notability. Cavarrone 10:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the previous article was deleted in February 2009, it was a completely different article, and the article that is here today was completely written from scratch. From memory, the earlier 2009 article was a largely unreferenced stub dicdef which exclusively used blog/forum posts as citations. This is no longer the case for the current article. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zettai Ryōiki (2nd nomination), when WP:NOTDICT was a genuine concern back then, this article as it currently stands is not a dicdef article, and so WP:NOTDICT doesn't really seem to apply. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article consists of much more than a dictionary definition so NOTDICT is irrelevant; the article also has enough sources to satisfy notability requirements Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Kanté Martínez[edit]

A footballer who hasnt played in a fully pro league and hecne fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTBALL. RRD13 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. Fenix down (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michail Lountzis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He isn't notable per WP:NBASKETBALL. He may meet this criteria in the future, but for now it's a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- He is just a basketball player, no any awards no any significance. Absolutely fails under WP:NBASKETBALL. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 16:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previous posters. Not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on the English language sources I see, I would agree with deletion. However, this is a 16 year old kid who just signed with one of the biggest names in Greek basketball (Panathinaikos is a globally recognized club - one of the best in Europe). I put a note on the Greece WikiProject to get help looking at Greek language sources. In my opinoin, if it's the same story as English sources the article clearly should go, but if the kid meets GNG in Greece it should stay. Hopefully we'll hear from someone who can research this. Rikster2 (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet the GNG. Mice never shop (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Barlow[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

7 year old basically unsourced WP:BLP for an actress who seems to lack the necessary notability to have her own article. According to Google, she mainly plays smallish roles in single episodes of TV series, nothing major or lasting. Her plays seem also to have received only minimal attention [1]. The middle two sentences of the article at the moment (about "snarf" and "mashive") seem to be 5-year old[2] vandalism.... Fram (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lack of substantial coverage of her or her work. Her roles on TV have generally been small or medium-sized, rather than leading or well-known. She seems quite popular in Jane Austen circles, and crops up a lot in their newsletters and websites, but not in reliable sources. Lack of reviews of her stage work (although shows at e.g. Edinburgh Festival Fringe can attract a lot of reviews). It's possible her older, pre-internet-era work might make her notable despite appearances to the contrary, but at the moment I'm not seeing anything. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Colapeninsula. Checked 10 SERP pages on "web" mode, didn't find anything to establish notability, nothing in "news" mode for google.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Lutz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After examining the first AfD on this article and perusing the edit history and talk page of this article, I think, at the very least, this demands another review at AfD. ~~Frankly, the first AfD should have ended in delete, not no consensus.~~ In any event, subject's notability is dubious at best. Safiel (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BTW, I noticed the first AfD had been vandalized, with the vandal removing several of the pro-keep arguments from the page. I have since reverted the vandalism. Still, clearly this article warrants consideration. Safiel (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notoriety mentioned in the last debate seems to be that he has been mentioned in newspaper articles. If everyone ever mentioned in newspapers articles had a Wikipedia page, there would be a lot more entries. There are no awards or accomplishments of merit listed. I don't understand why the last one ended with no consensus. The arguments certainly seem to favor deletion. Every pro argument seemed to have rampant speculation or personal opinion. There is clearly not enough citations or reliable evidence to warrant keeping. While he may be notable to Disneyphiles, this is Wikipedia, not DisneyWiki. WP:BIO. sig1068
Delete Al Lutz no longer is writing blogs on MiceAge anymore, hasn't been cited in the media since a mention of him in 2007.. 75.73.83.182 (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indepeth, independent coverage of the type that is needed to establish notability. On the other hand, notability is not temporary, so the fact he is no longer doing something is not important. We even have wikipedia articles on dead people, as shocking as that may be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that Al Lutz was a source citation in a tabloid article about Lindsey Lohan's birthday party at Disneyland does not mean he is notable. Toring (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. + WP:G11 slakr^\ talk / 01:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His Wheels International[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Effectively unreferenced article which entirely fails to establish notability of the organisation. Can find nothing substantial to remedy this. TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Source searches are not providing any coverage in reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:ORGDEPTH for a Wikipedia article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyrcus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can see, there's no such breed, and certainly none reported to DAD-IS; hircus is the sub-specific name of the domestic goat. This is either a scam or hoax, or a bizarre attempt to publicise cashmere products from Italian companies such as Loro Piana and Filatura Di Crosa which claim to obtain the wool of this animal. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Hyrcus" is the Latin name for goat. I see no indication that the term refers to any breed specifically. Neelix (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kryštof Hádek[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant promotional tone. Non-notable subject. Popcornduff (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatantly promotional. Additionally, no significant references; one broken link, the other is not English. The actor may be notable but the article does not establish this. I think this page is unsalvagable but wouldn't object to it being recreated from scratch with citations and an establishment of notability. --Yamla (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since the time I registered my vote, a number of citations have been added to the page, including one showing the actor was indeed nominated for the Czech Lion. Additionally, the page has been substantially cleaned up. I'm leaving my initial vote unedited at the moment, but I expect the closing admin to take these changes into account and put little to no stock in my vote from earlier today. --Yamla (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is clearly notable, he starred in notable films and won an award for it. It's completely irrelevant what language sources are written in. I've removed some of the promotional / unclear stuff. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this actor seems to have been nominated for several prestigious awards, and as Filelakeshoe has removed all promotional content, there is no need for this article to be deleted.Staglit (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won Czech Lion for supporting actor, the Czech equivalent of an Oscar or BAFTA; and meeting WP:NACTOR with multiple major roles in notable works, e.g. 3 Seasons in Hell, Dark Blue World, Raw (TV series). Coverage of Czech film in English language sources isn't great, but Czech sources are perfectly valid. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets the WP:NACTOR criteria with the Best Actor award. AllyD (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and award winning actor, well known in the Czech Republic. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Won a major award. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete – filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Escape from Dagu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never released novel; can't find any references to substantiate any sort of notability. Fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But no escape from deletion pointless page Gregkaye (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TC (musician)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

TC has been featured in two records: the B-Side of a #38 hit, which isn't enough to suffice WP:MUSICBIO#C2 in my opinion, and a #183 hit, which really isn't enough. (The Official Charts Company publishes up to #100.) Laun chba ller 12:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly contest - "Make U Bounce" looks set to be a top 20 if not top 10 hit, and two charting singles should be a solid foundation for his page to stay up in the meantime. Sure, the discography could use some formatting but there's nothing here which warrants a deletion in my opinion. --DJ UnBa lanced 14:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to think what harm is there in keeping it up? Nothing. It may be weak on citations but that can be easily improved (by anyone, including you). --DJ UnBa lanced 14:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced being a featured artist on the B-Side of a hit single is enough. Thus, I'm proposing a WP:TOOSOON deletion.--Laun chba ller 15:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic how you think an established artist's article which has been up since 2006 is "too soon" and yet you were very eager to create a stub for "Make U Bounce" that's not even out yet.--DJ UnBa lanced 07:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference offline and probably wouldn't've remembered it after a few days. Even if it got speedily redirected, the reference was still in the history and could be used later. In any event, I think I'm going to withdraw this because of the clear consensus.--Laun chba ller 08:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, obviously notable. Has multiple releases on notable labels, did an essential mix, was and still is UK dance charted, and the Caspa remix of "Where's My Money" is a widely known dubstep hit. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Has multiple dance chart hits in the UK, according to this article in the Evening Post. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Midland Football Combination. If there's disagreement over redirect's target, feel free to drop a line at WP:RFD slakr^\ talk / 01:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry United FC[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable amateur football club. Media coverage is mostly local; no indications of widespread coverage. PROD removed by SPA/COI user whose sole action has been to remove this PROD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Midland Football Combination, and a note that people who confuse this with Coventry City FC should go there. There is local coverage, but it's definitely too soon to say the club is definitely notable in its own right at the moment. The current prose, to me, pretty much states "this club isn't notable". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Midland Football Combination- Its too early. Since it haven't won the trophies and promotions yet, subject lacks independent sources too. Not in a position for alone article at present. It doesn't pass through Football club standards in general. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 12:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Midland Football Combination, no evidence of independent notability but likely search term. Note actual spelling would be Coventry United F.C.. Giant Snowman 16:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No evidence of significant fan base Gregkaye (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note an article on this club was deleted earlier this year: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coventry United F.C. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but not to Midland Football Combination, because that competition no longer exists. The appropriate redirect target would be Midland Football League, the league the club will be playing in next season.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 01:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes of Noctum[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable band. CSD was contested and another editor said "A couple of these sources are reliable, but none of them are significant". In my view, that's worthy of raising a full discussion to see if there is anything else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N/WP:BAND and WP:V. We have a few sources, but they're either musician databases with no content, or trivial references. I was unable to find significant reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you couldn't find sources, then you didn't look. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial mention (for a news search) and a questionable source (from books) do not indicate notability for this band. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and Woodroar: fails WP:BAND. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 01:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso Perugini[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability for WP:ARTIST. Apparently the autobiography of a sockpuppeteer. Aside: the same material has been deleted a remarkable five times on it.wiki as unambiguous promotion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the italians deleted the page maybe we should too. https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfonso_Perugini&action=edit&redlink=1 Gregkaye (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 02:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dazzie Dee[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. They lack the significant coverage in reliable sources required to have an article. Most of the refs are complete crap, all random low level blogs. Only reliable ones are an AllMusic entry (no biography or chart performance) and Billboard, which are only passing mentions, with no in depth coverage. STATic message me! 23:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wanna keep this article as long as the artist is notable, this discussion is taking long time. --OriginalDoc (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The only thing I could come up with was him hitting the billboard chart at number 25 for a single on Google Books. This isn't enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO to me, but hints that there may be more out there buried deep someplace if someone wants to dig. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :* @Technical 13: @STATicVapor:The artist has more than one single, which they didn't make it to BillBoard 100, you should have checked more pages instead of that one, these pages and magazines/books belong to BillBoard (of 1990s), in which of these 20+ pages Dazzie Dee is involved in and not just mentions.^[1] I can say that in fact he is notable for his works with notable artists such as Ice Cube and more. There are multiple sources, third party and interviews that claim Dazzie's notability, such as AllMusic, BillBoard, DubCNN (West Coast Network news & local magazine), LA Times (article) and more. I think you could contribute and help me too, instead of being so 'harm'.. Have you checked Magioladiti's response to page talk?.. And I made some updates to that page.

^ Dee writes charitable "Receipt", Capitol Rec

"This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it contains references (I can't assure the quality but it is certainly referenced)."

--OriginalDoc (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been clearer, I meant the only thing I could find in addition to what STATicVapor offered. Mostly passing mentions or video clips (which I don't have the data to watch as I'm on a limited bandwidth). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 11:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple reliable observers have covered the subject. OccultZone (Talk) 00:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 00:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 00:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Darrell Schweitzer#Other short story collections. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Meaning of Life and Other Awesome Cosmic Revelations[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chapbook story collection that doesn't meet WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Darrell_Schweitzer#Other_short_story_collections. I can't find anything to show that this collection is ultimately notable outside of its author, but it would work as a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect ditto Gregkaye (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Alternatives[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be simply a phrase used in many contexts, certainly not unique to the US DoD. When I look at the food in my refrigerator I make an analysis of alternatives to determine what I am going to cook. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I take your point, but in this case it refers to a formal methodology like Measures of Effectiveness and Risk Assessment. It is not simply a common phrase. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to critical thinking, of which this is a made up name for decision-making, and meaning the same thing, except from a military point of view. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun T[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no reliable sources to establish notability, and the best I can find is something in Huff Post about him using Twitter to come out. Does not cut mustard. TheLongTone (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability, fails GNG. Quis separabit? 23:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. No significant independent press coverage. Cowlibob (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Eden Park. Of note, the majority of the content was actually copied over from Eden Park#Rugby Union (or the other way around, not sure). Also of note, while I'm technically the nominator, I did not participate beyond procedural matters, so closing shouldn't be inappropriate. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 06:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Union at Eden Park[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for User:JamessArdenn; rationale copied from edit summary: "This page adds nothing that cannot be found on the main Eden Park page or the 2011 RWC page; moreover it places an unnecessary amount of emphasis on the 2011 RWC." Ansh666 11:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to Eden Park. Remove unsourced material substantially. As a major stadium in New Zealand, it is notable as the site for important games. There is news coverage in the New Zealand Herald about the stadium, about its ticket prices, coverage here too. So my sense is the subject is notable but the current article is badly done, with overemphasis on parts of the topic while ignoring the basic subject (the venue itself).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tomwsulcer: the article on the stadium is Eden Park. This article is specifically about the rugby union matches played there. Ansh666 15:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ansh666: You're right, my mistake. Changing vote to either Delete or Merge to relevant section of Eden Park.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eden Park –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Eden Park. But if it is retained, it should be renamed Rugby union at Eden Park -- rugby union is normally written without the capitalisation, it's not a proper noun, unlike Rugby Football Union. -- Shudde ^talk 02:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eden Park, a reasonable WP:ATD. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to United Nations Development Programme. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BIOFIN[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 09:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge and redirect to UNDP. Fram (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can be merged to UNDP, there is potential of notability in future. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to United Nations Development Programme. Doesn't appear to be independently notable at this time, and a merge is a reasonable WP:ATD. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zacuto (camera accessories)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertising The Banner talk 09:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through each of the article's sources and none constitute "significant coverage in secondary sources" as described at WP:CORPDEPTH. The best sources are what appear to be blog postings about the company's products which also mention the company in general ways; the other sources are product reviews, lists, self published, etc. It looks like a good company and when the company itself is covered in a significant way in reliable secondary sources it would be appropriate for an article, but it's not there yet. SchreiberBike talk 03:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are significant sources now. These include published magazines and appear to be "significant coverage in secondary sources' as described at WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources are trade magazine or speciality magazines within the industry of filmmaking. Lauralam7 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question The closest I see to a significant coverage is this at the Today's Machining World website. Am I missing the others which are actually about the company and not its products? Please post links. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 04:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AQi Fzono[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated two articles, symphonic techno and syntheremin for deletion today, and after I did a little research on their inventor, I realized I couldn't find any reliable sources about him, either. Λeternus ^(talk) 08:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hard to see how this satisfies the basic notability criteria given the lack of third-party sources or in-depth coverage. --DAJF (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Transport for London. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connect Project[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure this project itself is notable. There is no mention of it in the Transport for London article now and I can't find another source other than this marketing information from another vendor it looks like. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~Keep~~ Please see comment below. ~~It's a notable topic.~~ I have added ~~one~~ three reliable secondary source reference and an external link to a TfL presentation. There are other sources out there. I'm not sure why it is not mentioned in the TfL article, it certainly should be. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Notability is not temporary and this now defunct project was last news back in 2006. Would suggest merging it into Transport for London. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm confused by your statement. WP:NOTTEMPORARY says: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Whether the project was undertaken in 1906 or 2006 is immaterial under this guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely the issue here. The project never had the "significant coverage" required by the notability guideline and brief spike of interest in 2006 is insufficient. For this reason, WP:NOTTEMPORARY states "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability". Lamberhurst (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. A crappy IT project that didn't happen. The world is riddled with failed IT projects. Szzuk (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been crappy but it didn't fail, it is currently in use across the whole of the London Underground. Philg88 ^♦talk 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TFL. OK you persuaded me, a paragraph on TFL is about what it is worth. Szzuk (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about a communications venture. Transport for London is a transport related organisation. People linking to this page may typically have little interest in travel fare systems and the like. keep page here I'd say Gregkaye (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Non-notable IT project which briefly enjoyed media attention in 2006. At best, merits a brief mention in Transport for London. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Support - didn't spot that the proposal had been changed from keep to merge. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment !vote switched to merge, I don't think that it can survive in it's current form. Enough references for a section in the TfL article. Philg88 ^♦talk 20:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Transport for London. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify for a standalone article. I found this source from The Telegraph, but not much else to establish notability per Wikipedia's standards. A merge is a reasonable WP:ATD. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Jennings (author)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks a lot like one of the articles that huge sock chain cranked out for pay. Misleading refs (the one marked USA Today is a press release on a PR firms website), and google news turns up nothing on him, but quite a bit on a college baseball player that will probably be notable soon. John from Idegon (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a run of the mill, part time (60 days per year) speaker. Zero reliable sources to prove he's even alive. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Dunham[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

local personality with only local coverage. not notable John from Idegon (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:GNG. Significant coverage in reliable sources, including:
- Boyter (2009) include one full chapter on him ("George Dunham — Jub-Jub", pages 85-101) and other mentions throughout the rest of the book.
- An academic study of his show that includes lots of information on him: Dempsey, John Mark. "“We Talk about Life”—KTCK, The Ticket, and the Influence of Guy Talk on Sports-Talk Radio." Journal of Radio & Audio Media 15.2 (2008): 184-196.
- Full length newspaper profiles:
  - Barry Horn. "Hot Air: Dunham and Miller have enjoyed a long morning run together". The Dallas Morning News, 13 May 2011.
  - Kelly Dearmore. "Sports-radio country gold: 1310 The Ticket's George Dunham throws down with the Bird Dogs". CultureMap, 9 January 13.
  - Nancy Kolsti. "Dunham and Dickenson connect listeners to North Texas games". North Texan Magazine, Fall 2004.
  - Katie Grivna . "Local talk radio co-hosts continue UNT support". North Texas Daily, 21 January, 2010.

And those are just the sources I found right away. I will be expanding and improving the article in the days to come. Antrocent (♫♬) 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be enough in the sources provided by Antrocent to meet WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 02:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Star Jr[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject doesn't meet notability standards at WP:GNG due to lack of significant reliable source coverage. Agyle (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sources I did find, which I don't consider significant coverage:

"Weather Star Jr. available in mid-1994". Communications Engineering Digest, Volume 20, Issue 1-7. International Thomson Communications. 1994. p. 59. The Weather Channel announced that delivery of its new, low-cost Weather Star Jr. model will begin in the middle of the year. The new model, manufactured by Wegener Communications and priced at $500, was developed for small systems that want to launch The Weather Channel but can't afford the more expensive Weather Star models. The unit is being field tested in eight cable systems around the U.S. before being released later this year, company officials said. [That's the entire article]

United States. Federal Communications Commission (2001). FCC Record: A Comprehensive Compilation of Decisions, Reports, Public Notices, and Other Documents of the Federal Communications Commission of the United States. The Federal Communications Commission. pp. 19784–19787. Upgraded Weather Star Jr. computers will have the functionality of the Star Ills, providing an aural tone the first time a particular scroll or crawl containing emergency information is transmitted. We find it reasonable to grant MVPDs that receive... [Minor mention amidst boring FCC legislative stuff]

"The Weather Channel unveils low-cost Weather Star". Multichannel News. June 14, 1993. [Does not mention model by name; I'd guess it's referring to the Jr., but it's not verifiable.]

--Agyle (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention the reference currently in the article, an archived page from The Weather Channel (seller of the Weather Star Jr) concerning an FCC requirement for audio beeps when a severe weather warning is initially announced. The archive.org link also contains a link to an archive of the Weather Star Jr.'s manufacturer's Installation and User's Guide. Neither of these are independent sources, so they don't count toward notability.

All of the very limited information in this article that is verifiable through reliable sources is already included in Weather Star, so no merge is needed, although a redirect to Weather Star#Former systems would seem useful. Agyle (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found another article (possibly a press release), in the same Communications Engineering Digest as mentioned above; quoting entire article:

Communications Engineering Digest. International Thomson Communications, Volume 19, Issues 7-13. 1993. p. 73. Low-cost 'Weather Star' ATLANTA-The Weather Channel has announced a new, low cost version of its addressable 'Weather Star' receiving system. Officials with The Weather Channel say that the network has signed an agreement with Wegener Communications to manufacture the receiver, with shipments expected to begin next year. 'For some time, we have been looking for ways to make the Weather Star available to small systems,' says Becky Ruthven, VP of affiliate sales and marketing for The Weather Channel. 'After extensive R&D, we've developed a solution in terms of product features and cost. Many small systems that want to launch The Weather Channel have not been able to afford the Weather Star; that's about to change.' The Weather Star is part of the propriety patented satellite communications system developed by the Weather Channel for telecasting local, system-specific weather forecasts to cable viewers every five minutes. The new, low-cost model called the Weather Star Jr. will render forecasts in videotext (instead of the color graphics, animation, local weather radar and other visual effects available with the larger Weather Star 4000). As a result, the scaled-down model will be 'significantly less expensive' than the Weather Star 4000, company officials say. Circle Reader Service No. 43

--Agyle (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notability via WP:GNG due to lack of significant reliable source coverage, and there's no other obvious basis in which to justify it.Jacona (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, & redirect to Weather Star#Former systems, fails the significant coverage test of the general notability guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References provided are trivial mentions and fail to provide significant coverage of the subject, in spite of the assertion of notability required to avoid speedy deletion.

That was my rationale for my original PROD. The editor who removed the PROD tag stated on the talk page that the firm is well known in the IP law community, but also admits to "having trouble finding additional sources to support notability... [due to being] mentioned so much in directory listings, bylines in article written by (but not about) its attorneys, and on patents, that I believe it's masking the sources that are about the firm. I also have to admit that, even though it's notable within the IP law community, it may not be notable in the general sense that Wikipedia requires.... I think that this is an article deletion that's not well-handled with PROD, and that it should get an airing on WP:AFD."

I agree, so I'm bringing it here. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. I could find no independent coverage. There is a Bloomberg listing [3] but it contains no information except the name of one of the partners (probably the person who listed it there). From the article's claims they could be an important law firm, but without independent coverage we can't prove it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Water for Life Decade[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is essentially a promotional close paraphrase of the UN site for the project. I bring it here in the hope somebody can find some third party references and fix it. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Ivanvector (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 02:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Negations[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable satire book by musician. Appears to fail WP:NBOOK Mikeblas (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find this review, which doesn't seem to be a particularly noteworthy source. No evidence it meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Citizen (character)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)\

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research article on a fictional character in a book CorporateM (Talk) 14:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Subject appears to be a minor character in a major literary work. No sources are cited and a Google failed to yield enough to ring the notability bell. The article title is too generic for a redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some of the below comments I am withdrawing my delete !vote and moving to Neutral. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Ulysses characters, delete without redirect per Ad Orientem. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like every character in Ulysses there's plenty of material available for those who wish to find it. A simple GBooks search for <"The citizen" Ulysses> [4] turns up bunches of books discussing this character, who is the main candidate to be the "Cyclops" of the story. The assortment of relevant material is almost daunting, including one entire book on the image of "the citizen" in Joyce.[5] It's certainly enough to show the notability of the character. As an editorial matter, we might consider merging this and other articles currently contain very brief character sketches into List of Ulysses characters, but this should be without prejudice to a separate article when more content has been written. (We might consider a rename to The Citizen (Ulysses), which would be a rather more meaningful search term.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'd be wary of the reasoning that this is only a minor character; Ulysses has been pulled apart and examined in such detail by various scholars that even the most minor aspects of the work are more than likely the subject of coverage in multiple reliable sources. In this case, I believe that the sources identified by User:Arxiloxos are probably good enough to justify a stand-alone article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus of the discussion is that that subject doesn't (yet) have independant notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Sands[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though no doubt Madeleine Sands is a highly competent person and excellent at her job, leading a team to develop successful apps, she hasn't been the subject of significant news coverage herself. Her appearances on TV have been to talk or comment about the Google Glass Breastfeeding app. The biographical info is largely (if not entirely) unsourced and the coverage is about the apps she worked on, or the organisations she worked for. Fails WP:GNG notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Wikipedia BLPs are intended for those with substantial career achivement and this not yet apparent here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into Google Glass Breastfeeding app trial. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, most of this article is already merged, because it is largely not about Sands but about the project. Sionk (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the Google Glass Breastfeeding app trial is also the subject of an AfD, so things are a bit up in the air at the moment. Sionk (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per user Xxanthippe & Sionk article falls far out of sight, to be considered WP:NOTEBLP, reference link provided are mostly from public domain websites like "vimeo" or majorly from non notable publishing sources, including a reference link to a published source written by "Madeline Sands" herself in "reference link number 2". This article falls in the category distinguished in WP:B2B though, with attributes of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOPR ,WP:COS. Science.Warrior (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete ...and don't forget that WP:TOOSOON might apply for ths 25-year old entrepeneur. After all, she isn't in the league with Mark Zuckerberg (yet). Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Third Republic[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic appears to be original research and this period in Egypt is well covered in History of Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research.--4scoreN7 (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect against restoration. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Fourth Republic[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic appears to be original research and should have been discussed first in Talk:History of modern Egypt. This period is well covered in different articles, including History of Egypt under Anwar Sadat and History of Egypt under Hosni Mubarak. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research.--4scoreN7 (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect against restoration. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Fifth Republic[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See this and this. This period is already covered in Timeline of the Egyptian Crisis under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and 2012–13 Egyptian protests. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research.--4scoreN7 (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect against restoration. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qpdfview[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks any third-party reliable sources. The sources are all either primary sources, WordPress blogs, open wikis, or distros that are only showing that it's in their repositories with no significant context whatsoever to show notability, and these aren't independent sources either. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said at least twice at Talk:Qpdfview, if this is the standard to be applied, then it isn't being applied uniformly. evince, okular, and xpdf are all highly notable pieces of open-source PDF software, used by millions of people in the the real world, worldwide, for free. In the virtual world of wiki, they are apparently not notable. Though they are older than qpdfview, they also arguably fail WP:NSOFT, as I'm sure do many other open-source software projects. If qpdfview is deleted, so should the rest. If you do delete those articles, then wikipedia has lost sight of its roots and gone rather insane. If you don't, ya'll a bunch of hypocrites. I have yet to receive any response to the above argument, and I'm getting a little tired of pointing this out.

The solution? Leave qpdfview as is. Inclusion in a wide variety of different software OS repositories is a sign of independent notability in the real world. Inclusion standards for many repos are very strict. Some here don't seem to understand that. Are they perhaps unfamiliar with how open-source software works? Most certainly, WP:NSOFT is flawed when it comes to open-source software. Perhaps WP:NSOFT should be nominated for deletion? It's arguably far less notable than most open-source software projects. MartinSpacek (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is misdirected.

This discussion is about qpdfview, not Evince, Okular or xpdf. Please, stay focused.
If you have problems with WP:NSOFT, you should go to its talk page and discuss the matter there. Still, without coverage in secondary reliable sources the subject has huge problem with WP:V and is not deemed worth inclusion anyway.
You ignore the difference between usefulness and notability. Even most useful software may not be worth encyclopedic coverage.
Regargding repos: Windows is much more widely used OS then conventional Linux distros, and inclusion into Windows distribution is much more difficult. Does that mean that every piece of software included with Windows is inherently notable?

Using such arguments in deletion discussion is not helpful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F. B. McFarren Memorial Park[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, no indication of significance. TheQ Editor (Talk) 19:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep and expand We normally do keep pages on significant municipal parks. In this case, it seems that there would certainly be newspaper sources available about the history of the site. They need to be looked for and added. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 21:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:and expand per DGG. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Park in a smallish town. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG - Simply needs expanding & sourcing. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, nom withdrawn. WP:Non-admin closure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Merge it with Narendra Modi. Sitush (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. I see that there has been a recent AfD, sorry. Pathetic outcome but there we go. - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, Thanks for adhering to wiki polices and accepting the outcome of a recently concluded Afd.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. How-to list of school science experiments, no reason to keep this a week Jac16888 ^Talk 18:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magic of Science[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of a few basic science "magic" tricks. No references and has original research. Prod was removed with no reason given. Bgwhite (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopaedic 'how-to' stuff (WP:NOTHOWTO). Unreferenced, and looks rather like a copyvio of somewhere. Peridon (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biological imperative[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Besides having no sources and external links which are all dead or seemingly unrelated to the topic, this appears to be a case of original research – while the term “biological imperative” appears to be a real one used in a wide variety of contexts, there doesn’t seem to be a verifiable list of any specific things defined as biological imperatives per se. While the phrase should (and does) have an entry on the wiktionary, that seems entirely sufficient given the topics ambiguity when it comes to specifics. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - I'll wait until there is more discussion before I vote. It drives me nuts when articles are created and then no attempt to source the thing is made. However, I think this could be a very good article if it is written right. Hopefully someone will see the AFD and do a little work on it. Bali88 (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC) I think the right move is to delete it. Unsourced. No one seems interested in working on it. I think it could be a good article if someone gave it some attention, but I think it could just be recreated in that case. Bali88 (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure if its worth noting, but this article has existed in one form or another since 2005, when it appeared to focus on "genetic imperative". I've tried a few times over the last couple years to find some worthy citations before finally giving up and conceding to myself this is probably best option. I do hope you're right though. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tricky one. From what I can tell there's not an agreed upon definition of "biological imperative" that clearly distinguishes it from basic need. I think the best case for keeping will frame it as a term used by particular notable researchers, in a certain theoretical context, or something more discipline-specific. As a general concept it seems like a less used term for ideas we already have articles for. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not much to be said for this article. There is not much to be said of it, that Buddy Lee has not said already. But there is the subject of the scientific consensus on this topic, or rather lack of it. It is sad to me that genetics has allowed this discussion to go unaddressed, so that a thousand scientists can opine in scholarly articles that a particular thing is a biological imperative, while ten of those scientists selected randomly could not agree on a list of ten biological imperatives, much less this list. There is a specific WP guideline that covers the premature creation of science articles, but I cannot find it, unfortunately. Basically, the coverage of this term in Scholar amounts to trivial coverage: it is used in passing, in discussions about other topics. For example, two of the articles where it is used as a title, both put question marks at the end of the title: "Physical illness: Social construction or biological imperative?" and "Aggression: A Biological Imperative?". Scientists cannot even seriously, before the scrutiny of their peers, put forth the combination of the term and a hypothetical example. Even worse, the whole subject reminds me of the History Channel-level stabs at explaining evolution, where evolution is described as ab "arms race" and species are said to "prefer" a particular genetic variation. This is putting the emphasis on success, as though it were chosen by the species, and those species who do not choose it, well, they are just sorry losers. The extinction of species can be influenced by cataclysmic factors, and the success, by dumb luck (birds on islands that have no snake predators, for example, with their extravagant plumage and mating dances that serve only an aesthetic purpose). Anarchangel (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broaden - I came across this article while researching the "breed imperatives" of Jack Russell Terriers (i.e., behaviors they will exhibit no matter how well trained). I suggest that the page be kept; In time, I believe its scope may change. Joad Marshal (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Within the realisation that my biological knowledge doesn't stretch far beyond the song, "head, shoulders, knees and toes" I'd tend to side with the person that knew the subject the best. Gregkaye (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veda Scott[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable per WP:ENTERTAINER. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she's a less notable person on a less notable franchise. Only on lesser channels in about half of US states http://www.rohwrestling.com/tv/listings Gregkaye (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable female wrestler. No claims of notability and no significant independent coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ring of Honor is quite notable, but that notability isn't inheritable. She, by herself, currently fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Yong[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is a non-notable candidate for public office, and thus fails WP:POLITICIAN Mattlore (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is a long way off from the notability threshold. Schwede 66 05:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Schwede NealeFamily (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom as non-notable politician. Cited references are not independent. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable candidate. If he wins the election, things will be different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Without prejudice to a sensible redirect if and where the topic is mentioned j⚛e decker ^talk 05:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhume Mela[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sourcing, no notability. Been tagged for two years with no additional work on it. -- McDoob AU93 20:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bhume Mela or Bhume Pooja is the most important festival of Chimkhola. There are evidences of this festival too.

Video of Bhume Mela on Youtube

About Bhume Mela in the official site of chimkhola— ASCII-002 I ^Notify_Online 04:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ascii002: - First website is Youtube which obviously isn't a WP:RELIABLESOURCE, and the second website looks to be someones personal website - Again cannot be used per WP:BLOG, So thus no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no reason to have these few words as a separate article, even if the festival can be shown to be marginally notable. A mention in the article of the Nepalese state that hosts the yearly festival is sufficient. Jus da fax 05:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

President Plaza[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN mall. PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No usable references in the article, and a search failed to find any reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a source or two that were reliable, but nothing that contained quite enough to be considered signficant coverage. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Your Students[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Site is less notable than it was in the first AfD, has not been updated in ~4 years, has had no lasting effect. rahaeli (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Notability is not temporary". (See WP:NOTTEMPORARY). Subject attracted significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG notability standards:
- Robertson, Campbell (2006-04-23). "Revisiting RateMyProfessors; Turning the Tables on Students". The New York Times.
- Lagorio, Christine (2006-01-03). "Hot for Teacher". The Village Voice.
- Weiner, Jacquelyn (2007-07-24). "Professors strike back with a Rate Your Students blog". Gainesville.com.
- Slezak, Jodi (2006-01-30). "Teacher blog rates students". The Daily Free Press. Archived from the original on 2007-10-10.
- Blagg, Kristin E. (2006-02-02). "Professors Even the Score with Online Student-Rating Blog". The Harvard Crimson.
- Thornton, Maggie (2006-01-27). "Professor Creates Site to Criticize Students". Cavalier Daily.
- Stancill, Jane (2006-01-23). "Prof's Ills Find Home in Blog". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2006-02-12.
- Blunt, Amanda (2006-01-26). "Professor's site mocks 'Rate My Professors'". The Digital Collegian. Archived from the original on 2006-04-21.
- Epstein, David (2006-01-16). "Rate Your Students". Inside Higher Ed.

Non-RS editorial coverage (wouldn't count for notability purposes; may still be citeable):

Staff (2006-02-26). "E-mail Altercation: Student, you're lazy! Professor, you're a zero!" (Editorial). Los Angeles Times.
Pegg, Lucy (2006-02-23). "Revenge of the eggheads". Mortarboard (blog). The Guardian.
Potter, Claire (2009-01-08). "The Radical's History Reviewed: When I Was Bad, I Was Horrid". Tenured Radical (blog).

Minor coverage:

Fraser, Matthew; Dutta, Soumitra (2010). Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom: How Online Social Networking Will Transform Your Life, Work and World. John Wiley & Sons. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-470-68733-8.

Note: Don't confuse the subject with the earlier website RateYourStudents.com, described here and here, or RateMyStudents.com, described here.

--Agyle (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep The above sources seem to meet WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - adequate sourcing, and notability is not temporary. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nobody has advocated keeping, so .... Sandstein 11:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1632 characters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unnecessary to have a separate list for characters that have real historical background. Suggest deletion as I question the notability at all for this level of detail or a merge with List of 1632 characters (fictional) (or merge that one here). Ricky81682 (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge from List of 1632 characters (fictional). Most of the historical and some of the fictional characters should be deleted. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a WP:COATRACK covered with notable garments. Underneath, there's nothing here but a bare rack.Jacona (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The first delete !vote has been countered by the addition of sources to the article, and this aspect of the deletion nomination has also been addressed. The article appears to still require copy editing to address promotional tone. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Agambire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

3 months warning that it is non-referenced, no change. which might be a hint for lacking notability. wp is not for storing CV's. ThurnerRupert (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It clearly meets WP:BLPPROD. If it was PRODed before and no change happened, get an administrator to delete it ASAP. DJAMP4444 09:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, article now referenced & notability established.TheLongTone (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is in need of a rewrite because it's too full of gushing praise, but there are plenty of sources in Ghanaian and other African media, and a bit of coverage in the west mainly for his involvement in Hope City[6]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. — Gwalla | Talk 22:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While naturally our instinct may be to say "keep" because the topic sounds notable, the article is in bad shape. Little has changed since it was 1st nominated for deletion over four years ago. Most of the keep votes were on the grounds that the article needed improvement rather than a delete, but that has not occurred. Three books [7], [8], [9] were cited in that debate, yet the first one is merely a book about the Woodstock Music Festival. The second one merely mentions the term several times in passing over the course of two pages. The third source is the best one out of the three, yet a quick glance through it seems to reveal a similar problem with the other source: It only mentions the term in passing on several pages. I suppose it could be used to cite Led Zeppelin as an example of a group who did acoustic songs, but that would seem to be the extent of the usefulness of that source.

The delete votes in the discussion were over concerns that the article is a dictionary term as well as original research. Seems like a good time to take it back to afd, since its been four years and the article remains largely unchanged from that discussion. Johnny338 (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I've got no idea why stub, cleanup and other relevant tags weren't put on this article rather than a delete tag. The article doesn't seem to be in terrible shape ... which is just as well. it was viewed 8301 times in the last 30 days. There are parallel articles in many other languages and, amongst other things, it would be an embarrassment to en Wikipedia if we didn't have our version. Many editors have arrived at articles that needed cleanup and done just that. Please remove the delete tag. Gregkaye (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Per User:Gregkaye. Johnny338 (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Dum Dum Club Podcast[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced article about a non-notable podcast. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 02:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - I found two sources ([10], [11]), but the depth-of-coverage in the second article is lacking. It appears that the topic has not received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:WEBCRIT. If additional sources are found, please feel free to ping me to this discussion or notify me on my talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to have enough secondary and/or third-party sources. Lucia Black (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding enough independent significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 03:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep per SK#1, withdrawn by nominator. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Karate Baka Ichidai

Julie Maddalena[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which shows this voice actress meets WP:GNG, not a single source within the article would generally be considered a reliable source, and while I can verify some of the roles through more reliable sources (google books search provides a handful of name checks/cast listings), I was unable to find signficant coverage. Additional sources welcomed. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep She has done lots of work on anime, most notably Digimon. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Does she meet WP:BASIC? --j⚛e decker^talk 16:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I"ll ask another question. ANN/E, which I admit we dont' consider reliable, mentions her in two Digimon properties. [12] and [13]. The cast lists for those are broken into groups, each group is alphabetical, but the first group appears to be more signficant actors than the latter in each property. In the first link, Julie does not appear in the first group of 17 actors. In the second link, Julie does not appear in the first group of 11 actors. Do you believe that ANN/E fairly represents the significance of Julie's contributions to Digimon? Wikipedia has a number of articles on Digimon, none of which mention her. Do you believe that Wikipedia's coverage of Diimon treats julie with due weight? Can you explain why? --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - We appear to have good coverage of Digimon on Wikipedia. Is that accurate? If so, can you tell me where we mention her, so that I can have some context about her apparently signficant role in the work? Because as near as I can tell, she's not mentioned there at all. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major roles in Digimon, Magic Knight Rayearth, Chobits, Sources found: [14], [15], [16]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is interesting, if those are signficant roles, that she is not mentioned once at Digimon or any of the articles in the Digimon properties, nor is she mentioned once at Chobits, but you do have a (unreliable, but probably accurate) source that shows the role in Magic Knight Rayearth to be (in my view) signficant. That doesn't meet WP:ENT #1, nor do any of those references provide notability under WP:BASIC, which guideline were you aiming for? --j⚛e decker^talk 00:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have gone ahead and struck my keep opinion, while she has played major roles there is not much to go in in terms of sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER #1. For the show Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex she did the voices of the Tachikoma, they having ample dialog in the series, detailed conversations about the meaning of existence in the second season even. I checked the article for Tenchi_the_Movie_2:_The_Daughter_of_Darkness and find the character she voices, Mayuka, is the major character in that film. So she has had significant roles in notable works. Dream Focus 10:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: List of Ghost in the Shell characters, Tenchi_the_Movie_2:_The_Daughter_of_Darkness, appear to be our coverage of those two roles. It seems a little odd to those of us unfamiliar with the latter work that "the major character in that film" should be listed ninth, although that is closer to showing some level of significance than what I had seen before. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They list the regular characters first, even if this person has more lines than some of them. Some shows have more main characters than others featured in every episode, so the list would be longer. Dream Focus 17:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw and recommend speedy close as nom. I think it's fairly clear where this is going, and keeping it open longer would simply be pointy. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The notability or lack thereof is not immediately clear but there are reasonable arguments on both sides. Certainly, being a losing candidate in a primary election is insufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN, but there is some merit to the claim that his business career has generated enough courage to make Mr Avellone notable otherwise. When both sides present reasonable arguments, and the community is divided as it is here, the result must be that no consensus can be declared. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Avellone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous deletion discussion was closed an no consensus, in part because there was a desire not to rush to deletion as Avellone was part of a breaking news event (the 2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial election). As Avellone failed to make the primary ballot, this is no longer an issue. The references provided do not show that the subject of the article is notable beyond this one event, as he has not received significant coverage outside of this context (the only references in the article are a paragraph in Time Magazine and a quote in an article about HMOs). Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If he actually made the ballot it would be appropriate to keep the article, but he didn't. It's either going to be Steve Grossman or Martha Coakley who wins the democratic nomination in September, they are well known. If Joseph Avellone made the ballot and was well known like Grossman and Coakley it would be more appropriate to keep but he was unable to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyjacks (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Surprised by the nomination. Easy pass for WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE as far as I see. A lot of the coverage about him comes from the last 18 months while running for governor, sure, but he's got an impressive resume that removes ONEEVENT as a factor. Being notable for only WP:ONEEVENT isn't the same as receiving some coverage for a number of different things before getting a whole lot of coverage for one thing in particular (invoking ONEEVENT doesn't negate press from that one big event, it just requires some evidence that the person has received coverage for other stuff, too, even if not as substantial). Make all the arguments you want about individual items in the following list not making him notable, the fact of the matter is there appear to be one or more sources about him for each of these -- at least as far as I can tell. These, in combination with the recent election, makes him an easy keep: (1) Selectman (and Chairman of the Board of Selectmen) in Wellesley, Massachusetts; (2) Executive VP at PAREXEL; (3) health care advisor to Paul Tsongas during 1992 Presidential run; (3) health care advisor to John Kerry during 2004 Presidential run; (4) Profiled in Time Magazine in 1979 as one of "50 Faces for the Future"; (5) COO for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts; (6) CEO of Veritas Medicine; (7) Board of Directors at Boston Heart Diagnostics. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Avellone has done all of those things he has not received significant coverage for any of them. The only sources that mention his tenure as a Selectmen are articles about the gubernatorial election. The source for his time at PAREXEL and Veritas Medicine is the PAREXEL's website, a non-independent source that does nothing to show notability. The source that covers his work for the Kerry campaign is an article about another gubernatorial candidate that mentions Avellone only in passing. The source for his work at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts is an article about HMOs that only contains two small quotes from Avellone. There is no source in the article his work at Boston Heart Diagnostics nor is it even mentioned in the article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As a general rule, I don't like citing common outcomes and other such shortcuts in deletion discussions, but that's admittedly what I was trying to do: point to a series of job titles as not inherently notable, but generally suggestive that significant sources exist (i.e. why high schools are typically kept -- not because they have special properties, but because we can assume sources will exist). I'd be a hypocrite if I stuck to that line of argument when called into question, though. So here are the sources. PS: Not one of these is connected to the recent election (I only pulled articles pre-2013). All seem reliable (most from the Boston Globe). Many are negligible indeed. Many are not. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Selectman: Globe reports he's chosen as vice chairman (negligible mention), 1991 Globe article on Selectman win, speaking at somewhat more length to the Globe as selectman about David Locke in 1992
- Blue Cross - speaking for the company in 1996 about drug benefits in the Boston Globe, talking to the Boston Globe in 1992 about how much they pay for smoking-related claims, commenting about Boston City Hospital for Blue Cross in the Boston Globe 1992, 1996 Knight Ridden Tribute article about seniors protesting a rate hike, Boston Globe mentions his promotion in 1994, says he'll be the "company's number two executive with responsibility for the core business", another from the Boston Globe in 1996 about Medex hikes, 1994 Boston Globe article about Blue Cross buying doctors' practices, another Globe story on medex from 1996, Bay State Banner article mentions him as VP in 1994, 1991 Globe article quotes him, primary source in 1994 Globe article about some report, and again in 1996..., and again in 1996, and again in 1996, but longer
- Veritas: 2000 Boston Globe, 2006 Boston Globe, 2002 Drug Week article quotes him speaking as CEO,
- Parexel: negligible indeed, but at least secondary source verified in this financial report via US Fed News Service, also this 2010 Health and Beauty Close-Up magazine article that quotes him for the company, Wireless News article from 2010 quotes him speaking for Parexel, China Weekly News in 2012,
- Advisor to Tsongas: 1991 Globe article spends several paragraphs talking about him, also mentioning him as a selectman, 1992 Washington Post article talks about him in connection to Tsongas, says he "helped shape Tsongas's comprehensive health care plan"
  - As a spokesman for various companies he was quoted numerous times. However, none of these passing mentions demonstrate previous notability. Also, although the subject need not be the main topic of the source material for it to be considered significant coverage, it is interesting to note that in the two decades worth of articles provided, Avellone is not the main topic of any of them. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's break it down: There's no question he's notable for the recent election, right? And there have been many pieces written specifically about him for that, right? ONEEVENT, however, tells us that in such cases you have to consider if it's the event that should be covered instead (and, with elections, that's usually the case). It does not say that when a lot of someone's notoriety comes from one event, all of those sources about that event don't count and the person must start from scratch showing sources about other things. No, if it can be shown the person has also received significant coverage about other things, then ONEEVENT simply doesn't apply and we're back to the GNG or BASIC. Additional sources that are only about him are not necessary. See: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." He is the primary source for or a prominent subject (even if not the main subject) of many of the articles cited above. That he is not the sole subject of any of them isn't a deal-breaker.
    - Rewording: The question is, looking at all of the coverage about this person for all purposes (but excluding brief mentions and primary sources), is the coverage significant? Span time? Independent? The answer is yes. Next question: is it all for one event? No. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure where you see "significant coverage about other things". The non-election sources do not provide any in-depth coverage. Most of them just give his name and his position with the company he worked for at the time, which is far from significant coverage. The only significant coverage he ever received comes from the 2014 election and therefore ONEEVENT does apply. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Hm. Well. A few of the above are minor mentions -- the ones I grabbed early in my search in response to your claim that the only articles that mention his various jobs are from election coverage. But anybody can click them or do their own research to see you're not fairly/accurately characterizing them (i.e. that "most of them just give his name and his position"). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Face it: He didn't make the ballot for 2014 and the Governor's race will mostly be focusing on either Steve Grossman, Martha Coakley, Charlie Baker or Mark Fisher (who actually could make the ballot). I say delete the article and "IF" Joseph Avellone runs in 2018, then maybe wikipedia can reconsider. Not all selectman in Massachusetts can have their own Wikipedia article even if they helped a U.S. Senator run for President. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Face it? Ok, I've faced it. (I don't live in MA, btw). But Wikipedia doesn't actually care about job titles or elections or who runs for what. There are specific notability criteria that give us a shortcut to notability (e.g. win an Academy Award means lots of coverage, so you only need to know someone won an Academy Award). He didn't win, so indeed he does not receive one of those shortcuts/free passes. No argument there, to be sure. So it falls back to WP:GNG/WP:BIO just like most other people's Wikipedia pages. The question is whether there are sufficient sources talking about him in any capacity (combined; having established it's for multiple reasons already) sufficient to pass WP:GNG/WP:BIO. I find it hard to imagine an actor, musician, or baseball player with the same level of sourcing being deleted, so I fail to see why this person would be. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It occurs to me you basically just reiterated your delete vote rationale and I responded by reiterating a bunch of stuff I've already said, too. Here's hoping we get some new blood in the discussion as it's presently heading for no consensus. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Put it this way if Joseph Avellone is not known to everyone in Massachusetts just some on Wikipedia and when he ran for Governor probably. Now he's not noticeable unless he runs for something else later. Even if he might pass something here he still doesn't need an article now because what good will it do. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia doesn't keep or delete articles based on what good it does or based on how many people know about something. Wikipedia doesn't care about state politics or what someone means to people of a certain state. It doesn't care what state anybody is in, editor or subject. The question of whether something is notable is a technical term that provides quasi-objective criteria precisely to avoid all of that. The question is: "has this person been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources?" Someone can run for this or that, but if sources aren't there it doesn't matter. Likewise someone can fail at everything he/she does but if there are plenty of sources, it doesn't matter. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good time to point out that ~~Ponyo~~ Plyjacks voted to deleted at the previous AFD purely because a pet article of his was also deleted [17]. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 22:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Sort of what I had redacted from my own comments before (arguing in an opposite way at the mark fisher afd). But I think you mean Plyjacks, not Ponyo (they are not the same afaik, anyway). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided above show Avellone passes the general notability guideline. Sure, they probably need to be put in the article, but that is an editorial concern that doesn't affect whether or not he is notable. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 07:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been delete the first time, and nothing has changed except he didn't make the primary. I'm still not seeing significant coverage in RS. GoldenRing (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he would be barely notable even without losing the nomination, but much of what's available online, as noted above, is not exactly flattering. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The sources provided above by Avellone show that the subject is not just known for the election. I am not convinced that that pre-campaign sources provide "significant coverage about other things," but combined with his candidacy, he passes WP:GNG. (i.e. neither his candidacy or his earlier work would make him notable alone, but together they do). --Enos733 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Everything I can see is passing mention. Maybe he has a lot of passing mentions and minor accomplishments, but I really don't see that ONE magic thing that makes it obvious that he passes WP:GNG. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:POLITICIAN and a bunch of passing mentions of the "Company spokesperson X said . . ." do not give him notability since the significant coverage is of the company, not the spokesperson. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Rhododendrites. Gregkaye (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not pass notability. Low level doctor and politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. See this article^WebCite (titled "Democrat Joe Avellone's campaign for governor endorsed by five Norfolk County officials") from The Republican, this article^WebCite (titled "Democrat Joseph Avellone 'not your average Joe'") from The Enterprise, and this article^WebCite (titled "Joseph Avellone, a Democratic candidate for governor, has Central Mass. tie") from Telegram & Gazette, this article^WebCite (titled "Mass. Governor Hopeful Avellone Banking On Business Experience") and this article^WebCite (titled "2 candidates, Juliette Kayyem and Joseph Avellone, miss cut for governor at Democratic convention") from the Associated Press, this article^WebCite (titled "Gov. candidate Joseph Avellone lays out 3-point jobs plan") from The Herald News, and this article^WebCite (titled "Avellone: Lowell a model for helping at-risk youths") from The Sun.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Port Place Shopping Centre to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. To be treated as an uncontested WP:PROD, as nobody has commented on the nomination. Sandstein 11:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a national movement, as far as I can tell it no longer exists, I cannot find a single reference to this specific group, and the article needs alot of work. GiraffeBoy (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliStar 2[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability standards (WP:GNG), could not find any mention of subject in a reliable source. Also oppose merging unless merged information is verifiable with reliable sources. Agyle (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's a shame, the article is pretty well written, but I can find no independent sources.... Sailsbystars (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universum Studio GmbH Germany[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reasonably declined as a speedy candidate. However, this is a blatant hoax (just not quite blatant enough for G3). Here's the real Universal Germany. Highlight communication (the alleged parent) makes no mention of owning such a subsidiary. The link in the article is to a Serbian site pretending to be German. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Also, note German Broadcasting Company which also warrants further investivation. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether or not it is a hoax and whether or not it is notable, the current article does not have any sources and is therefore Original Research. CorporateM (Talk) 03:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Force Collection[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG?? Müdigkeit (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any usable references for it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 03:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Stephanie Plum. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visions of Sugar Plums[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-unreferenced article about book that doesn't seem to meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stephanie Plum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Research[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Book doesn't meet WP:NBOOKS. Reads like an advertisement, only primary sources. Long-tagged for notability and references. Mikeblas (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a special collection of papers. nothing inherently notable about it that I've been able to ascertain. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article originally contributed by an account which is blocked as a Sockpuppet. The title is rather general for searches, but I am finding nothing to indicate that it met the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Comics[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only primary sources; no demonstration of notability. Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and delete~~ This is a fairly notable book in the comics world, but unless more can be said about it, it belongs in the article Scott McCloud. Shii (tock) 00:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book was reviewed in the New York Times by Garry Trudeau. Though I can't find the full review itself online, I did find a letter to the editor published by the NYT about the review, verifying that it was published. Snippets from the review are widely available online. The author's website also mentions reviews in the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times, and Publisher's Weekly. As the book was published 21 years ago, it is difficult to find sources, but I believe that the book is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Belief doesn't carry much; we need references from reliable third-party sources. -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book is incredibly influential and the sources are out there. I'm finding where it's been used as a source for various things but also where it's discussed in several peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, and books like this one and especially this book, which refers to it as groundbreaking. I'm adding them to the article as I speak. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This source talks about how high profile it was when it released, and these books talk about educators using it in a classroom setting. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't emphasize enough how incredibly influential this is. (More sources: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good sources. I looked into this and discovered two serious, in-depth academic studies which discuss the book at length: The Language of Comics: Word and Image (University Press of Mississippi, 2007) and Comics and Culture: Analytical and Theoretical Approaches to Comics (Museum Tusculanum, 2000). There are apparently multiple chapters in both books that either build on or critique this book. I recommend keeping this article so that this can be expanded on. Shii (tock) 18:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - wondering if we can find sources for the similar work, Comics and Sequential Art? BOZ (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: this book is widely covered and cited by other sources. It floors me that someone would even try to get this deleted. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the last several comments; recommend withdrawal of nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Sara[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject only had 1 to 3 episode-long guest appearances, very small film roles, and no significant coverage in any entertainment news/magazines articles or websites. While she did win a Young Artist Award for a guest role, that alone is not enough to merit notability (not everyone who wins that award has an article here) and there is no indication she has plans to return to acting anytime soon. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Child actress who doesn't achieve WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Lack of in-depth media coverage found in Google search (or in article). Roles were generally supporting/guest (note that the "co-starring" role in Always Greener wasn't the Australian show but an obscure 2001 thing that IMDb has almost no info about), and nothing that could be called innovative, cult, or iconic. Has not acted for several years, so she's unlikely to become more famous or get more coverage in the near future. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Former child actresses need to have achieved large scale notability to keep the articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] Dee writes charitable "Receipt", Capitol Rec

[1]